DSLRUsers.com

Forgive me if any of this has been addressed previously - I did a search which seemed to suggest NO.

Two questions:

Has NIKON indiacted anywhere what their reasoning behind the choice of a CCD sensor is? Seems somewhat bizarre that the technology with the better imaging capabilities should be used in this cheaper model and not in the flagship. Could it lead to a better bang for less bucks?

And, perhaps more importantly,

Has there been an idication as to the compatability with non-Nikon RAW converters or is it to be all that argy bargy we saw before - all over again?

Cheers,

Walter,

I've seen some discussion that is strongly suggestive that CCD is actually superior to CMOS (no, not from Nikon) which seems, to me, to be counter intuiitive, especially when one considers that with CMOS it's somewhat possible to more closely emulate the fact thaat each of the colours can be placed within the one picture site.

However the discussions I've seem come from what I considered to be a reputable source, and so my mind remains open.

Cetainly, as technology improves, the sensitivity in individual sites should improve as they get smaller, and perhaps this is a situation where the problem will, indeed, be overcome through the application of Moore's Law.

Regarding the converters, That seemed to be largely a catfight between Adobe and Nikon, and was settled fairly quickly.

To my knowledge, nobody has offerred any comment as yet on whether (or not) the WB in the D200 has been encrypted, which was where the catfight began. Further, Leigh has been looking at Capture 1 this week, which contains some very interesting features, including default profiles for a vast arry of digicams. Certainly, at the time of the catfight, there were no issues surrounding Capture 1, so perhaps the point remains moot?

Gary,

I have no reason to doubt the information I have received about the advantages of the CCD over the CMOS and it seems similar to what you've said.

I am studying up on this at present. So from where I see it the D200 has a CCD which inherently has a greater dynamic range PLUS it has larger pixels or photo-sites.

The more photons that each pixel can contain the less likelihood of noise, less risk of cross-talk and better speed (sensitivity). There are listings of the photon capacity of some sensors but I haven't got to them yet.

It all goes to indicate that this could possibly be quite a camera at a very competitive price.

So, in the overall scheme of things what will be the appeal of the D2x if all this theory proves to be true and beneficial?

The other day I got around to plotting a characteristic curve of sorts examining the luminance response of the D70s and the EOS5D. Interesting comparison - as close as you could hope in many respects but the Nikon had a more abrupt shoulder and toe than the Canon which illustrates that 'creaminess' feel one gets with the Canon, its CMOS sensor and other factors.

The big issue with all these devices seems to be the reconstruction of the image after the low-pass filter has done its thing. I have a meeting at North Ryde tomorrow to discuss some aspects of this as they relate to some of my work.

I'll report back.

From a technological POV, CCDs certainly make better imaging devices, but in the beginning Canon took the inferior technology and refined it to the point that it's now competitive to and arguably surpassing CCDs.

Perhaps this anomaly suggests that a new flagship is on the way. Evidently, it seems in recent years Nikon has adopted the shorter product cycles of its consumer electronics competitor - the D2H and D70 models were refreshed/replaced very quickly, maybe 2006 will bring a D2Xs sporting a high res CCD sensor resulting from all the development work done on the D200. It wouldn't surprise me, as the D200 is looking extremely competitive stacked up against the current D2X. The flagship may need further new features or dreaded more monkeypixels to justify its price position...

We still haven't heard the last of LBCAST - Nikon's proprietary sensor technology extracting the best of CMOS and CCD; which admittedly was underwhelming in the D2H implementation. But the refinement of the D50 and D200 suggests continued progress towards addressing high ISO noise
issues, I anticipate very big things™ to happen with Nikon's sensor technology in the short/medium term future.

And DX is here to stay.

Walter,

I'll certainly be ineterested to hear of your findings.

Getting back to your question, there are some features that the D2X posses that the D200 doesn't - it's faster, and it has the 2x crop-high speed mode as well, for instance. It's a larger and better sealed body, although from what I've heard, the sealing on the D200 is pretty bloody good as well.

Neither strike me as being a pure studio camera though, in the way that the big Canons do, and that's where I'm seeing a deliniation between the two marques: the Nikons will posses better outright performance characteristics than the Canons, making them perhaps a better choice for pj work.

From a different perspective, I also find that I prefer the ergonomics of the Nikons. I've not had enough of a serious play with a Canon to determine if that is simply because I'm more accustomed to Nikons, but I can also add that the vertical grip on the Nikon D2 series does nothing to enhance my experience: I'm one who pefers the smaller bodied versions and havbe no issues using the single grip in either a landscape or portrait orientation.

I suspect that the creaminess that we see in Canon images - which I do quite like, btw, is primarily due to the image processing algorithms that Canon employ. While I like the creaminess, I do still prefer the fact that Nikon images seem to me to be just that little bit sharper overall.

Just my opinion.

Gary,

Being the goose that I am when it comes to kit I purchased the battery grip for the Canon (with the attendant wrist strap) and, after a couple of brief forays, it resides in its box. In fact I may actually update my sales schedule with it.

If anything I have used the Nikon D70s more than the Canon 5D since it comes out with me for weekend shooting trips and is largely hand-held whereas the Canon has been largely the tripod-mounted 'production' camera. For me the ergonomics and menu operatrion etc. of the Canon are preferrable - so it is all very personal, isn't it?

Part of my reason for raising this issue in the first place is that, like Onyx, I see it as a fairly sure indicator that something else may be in the wings - albeit in the dressing room rather than right in the wings. Although the size of things to come may prove to be at odds with his summation.

Cheers,

Sheetshooter wrote:Gary,

Being the goose that I am when it comes to kit I purchased the battery grip for the Canon (with the attendant wrist strap) and, after a couple of brief forays, it resides in its box. In fact I may actually update my sales schedule with it.

I think that I still have a power winder for a Canon A1.

Wonder what progeny would ensue if we permitted them to mate?

If anything I have used the Nikon D70s more than the Canon 5D since it comes out with me for weekend shooting trips and is largely hand-held whereas the Canon has been largely the tripod-mounted 'production' camera.

And thereby you might be lending a little weight to my suggestion that the Canons are perhaps more suited to studio (style) work whereas the Nikons might be considered to be a bit more portable.

For me the ergonomics and menu operatrion etc. of the Canon are preferrable - so it is all very personal, isn't it?

Yes, very much so. As I said, I've not spend enough time with the Canons, but I find that the more forward location of the shutter release on the Canon is less comfortable for me than Nikon's placement of this control.

And I do prefer the dual control wheels - one forward, one aft - on the D70 for the setting of many of the features of the camera, rather than having to use the menu on the Canon.

But again, I need to pepper this statement with the caveat that I've not yet spent enough time using the latest Canons, and perhaps a week or so using one "in anger" might change my PoV.

Part of my reason for raising this issue in the first place is that, like Onyx, I see it as a fairly sure indicator that something else may be in the wings - albeit in the dressing room rather than right in the wings. Although the size of things to come may prove to be at odds with his summation.

We now live in the digital age, and there is always something in the wings.

We'll shortly be seeing the D200 in our hands - within the next week or two, if my information is good - but beyond that, I wouldn't be expecting to see too much emanating from Chez Nikon until the final quarter of next year, with Photokina in Koln being the target for this.

By way of contrast, and in keeping with Canon's place as a maker of consumer goods, an upgrade to or replacement for the 20D may well be on the cards for PMA in February next.

For what it is worth, I spoke to a buddy yesterday who got the chance at having a bit of a play with a D200. He thought that the camera was excellent (from what he could make of it in the allocated time) but he did say that it was more an up-specced D70s than a down-specced D2x.

Now that I am better acclimatised to 35mm SLR shaped cameras I begin to see that the D2x is a mammoth beast in the handling department. Having a built-in unremovable grip makes it bulky also. It measures up at 6.2 x 5.9 x 3.4 inches which is not all that different to my Toyo 4 x 5 Field camera (folded) which is 7.5 x 8 x 4 inches. Not criticisms, mind you - just observations.

Cheers,